Editing conventions for transcribed documents

Giving an accurate representation of original documents on a
website is sometimes a challenge. The problem is that old
handwritten documents often use various abbreviations and
contractions which could only be accurately transcribed
symbol-for-symbol by using special fonts which are not widely
available, and might not display correctly on some web browsers
even if they were. Trying to do it this way would also have the
disadvantage that readers unfamiliar with the abbreviations
and/or contractions might not be able to correctly interpret the
results. Another possible approach, posting actual images of the
documents themselves, requires considerable memory, and has the
additional drawback that many would have difficulty reading the
early handwriting. Although the exact details may sometimes
differ somewhat, the conventions used here will be similar to
what is used by many scholars who edit modern editions of old
manuscripts.

Ordinary type (i.e., without italics, brackets, or other
distinguishing features) will indicate text which has been
transcribed exactly as it is in the original document. It should
be kept in mind that words were often spelled in a way which we
would find strange. In some cases where a typographical error
might be expected, a word or letter has been underlined to
emphasize that the reading is correct as it is given. Rather than
using modern conventions, every effort has been made to represent
capitalization and puctuation as they appear, but both
capitalization and puctuation are often ambiguous in old
documents.

Italics will indicate expanded abbreviations and
contractions. Common examples would be "said"
for "sd" (the "d" often being superscripted
in the original manuscript) and "the" for what
is often incorrectly transcribed as "ye" (because what
looks like a "y" is actually the old Anglo-Saxon letter
which stands for "th"). Personal names will also be
expanded in this way when the expansion is unambiguous. So, for
example, "Wm." would be expanded as "William"
and "Willm." would be expanded as "William".
The important thing to remember is that italicized text
is a warning that editorial interpretation is taking place, and
that the text is not being transcribed exactly as is.

Text which is illegible or torn, but for which the missing
letter or letters can easily be supplied by context, will be
enclosed in [brackets]. Thus, if "accordi" is followed
by an inkspot which obliterates the following letters, but the
size of the inkspot and the context of the sentence indicates
that the word was "according", then it will be
transcribed as "accordi[ng]"

Words which are [italicised and in brackets] did not
appear in the original document, and are used in a number of ways
to give further information about the document. For example, if
the original text is arranged in columns (such as witness lists),
the italicised words in brackets might indicate the arrangement
of the columns. An illegible or torn section or a blank place in
the document might be indicated in this way. Also, if a word is
misspelled by leaving out letters, and the correct word might not
be obvious from context, then the correct spelling might be
indicated by inserting the missing letters italicised in
brackets.

Words in <angle brackets> are words that are in the
document, but are either interlined, or in the margin. Words in strikthrough
mode are crossed-out words which are still readable. Crossed-out
words which cannot be read are indicated in the form ????????.
As would be expected, a question mark in any of the above
conventions indicates an uncertain reading.

Of course, whenever possible, it is always best to examine the
original document itself, especially in those cases where the
reading of the document is of crucial importance.